What's wrong with what he said? I don't get the outrage. So the CEO should pay employees at a loss just because he's rich? lol. You don't become rich with that sort of mentality. That's not how your business stays competitive.

Obviously his interests in this case are their interests too. It's not intimidation, it's reality. Wouldn't you rather your boss tell you something like this, so you can at least be prepared for it?

I think it stops short of voter intimidation, but would you have a problem if it was voter intimidation even though the boss is having [in his opinion] their interests at heart, if it was a more blatant threat?

Obviously his interests in this case are their interests too. It's not intimidation, it's reality. Wouldn't you rather your boss tell you something like this, so you can at least be prepared for it?

A man marries a woman and demands she makes him dinner every night. If she doesn't have it ready he may lose his temper and be forced to beat her. He doesn't want to but if he can't come home to a hot meal after a hard days work he will be forced to punish her. If that happens he may go to jail, lose his job, divorce her, and she will be left alone with no money. Obviously his interests are hers as well. It's a good thing he told her what would happen so she is at least prepared for it.

I think it stops short of voter intimidation, but would you have a problem if it was voter intimidation even though the boss is having [in his opinion] their interests at heart, if it was a more blatant threat?

It would depend on how he intimated them. Physical threats, I have a problem with. Saying he'd have them assaulted for voting Obama or something.

But if he threatened to fire them for voting Obama, I don't have a problem with that. I mean I do have a problem, because I think that's a stupid demand to place on someone. But I think it should be within his rights to do so. It's an employers choice who he hires and fires. The employees must decide if they're willing to work for someone who puts such strange demands on them. It's a give and take.

It would depend on how he intimated them. Physical threats, I have a problem with. Saying he'd have them assaulted for voting Obama or something.

But if he threatened to fire them for voting Obama, I don't have a problem with that. I mean I do have a problem, because I think that's a stupid demand to place on someone. But I think it should be within his rights to do so. It's an employers choice who he hires and fires. The employees must decide if they're willing to work for someone who puts such strange demands on them. It's a give and take.

If you don't make me a meal I'll divorce you and take the kids with me woman!

What's wrong with what he said? I don't get the outrage. So the CEO should pay employees at a loss just because he's rich? lol. You don't become rich with that sort of mentality. That's not how your business stays competitive.

There's no ****ing way the CEO would be incurring a loss. None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

A man marries a woman and demands she makes him dinner every night. If she doesn't have it ready he may lose his temper and be forced to beat her. He doesn't want to but if he can't come home to a hot meal after a hard days work he will be forced to punish her. If that happens he may go to jail, lose his job, divorce her, and she will be left alone with no money. Obviously his interests are hers as well. It's a good thing he told her what would happen so she is at least prepared for it.

This is not an accurate analogy. The CEO has not threatened the employees with physical violence, the husband has.

This is more like, a husband demands a wife makes him dinner every night, or else he will leave her. The wife can make a choice... make the husband dinner or leave him. Nobody will blame the wife if she leaves. It is what it is.

But what the wife CAN'T do, is use the government to force the husband to stay with her, against his will, even if she refuses to make him dinner. That's unfair to the husband.

Of course, as your employer, I can’t tell you whom to vote for, and I certainly wouldn’t interfere with your right to vote for whomever you choose. In fact, I encourage you to vote for whomever you think will serve your interests the best.

There's no threat there, he's informing his employees of the FACT that Obama's proposed tax policies will negatively impact their business.

Yesterday I read an article on reddit where a bunch of liberals were shitting their pants because a company owned by Bain Capital (a company Mitt Romney hasn't worked for in over a decade) was going to outsource jobs to China, as though Romney had any part of this whatsoever. Even Barack fcking Obama tried this underhanded tactic during the debate, insinuating Romney had any control over the investments in his blind trust.

This ridiculous sensationalism needs to stop, on both sides. Fox News can be just as bad.

Also aren't you a libertarian? Do you think your boss should be able to dictate your personal political beliefs?

If the CEO is truly firing these employees for a silly reason, all he's doing is helping his competitors, by giving them trained employees to hire. The boss isn't dictating anyones political beliefs. The employees can quit if they don't like the bosses demands.

And regardless, he didn't even threaten to fire them if they voted Obama. He said if Obama is re-elected, he might have to make cut backs. Big difference.

The problem with what he said to his employees is that he telling them HOW to vote.

Nobody is saying he should go under... If he wants to close his business? then, that is his prerogative, but "warning" his employees about it is an obvious threat and an attempt to intimidate them into voting a certain way.

Between all the voter suppression with guys throwing registration forms in the dumpster, to these f'd voter I'D laws, to the supposed "mistake" in translation telling latino folks to vote on the 8th instead of the 6th?